George,

Cheri Lewis and the Electoral Board have taken a strong position advocating moving City elections to November. In her letter to Blake Caravati on Sept. 21st she clearly argues for moving the election and spells out reasons for it. When one takes a position on a public issue, one should expect counter arguments.

When Jake Mooney interviewed me for his Sunday article, he asked me about the Electoral Board's position. I responded. My choice of the word "complaining" was regrettable, made without forethought in the course of a long and challenging interview. But nothing I said could be interpreted as a criticism of the extraordinarily fine work the Electoral Board and the Registrars Office are doing in administering elections.

Perhaps it would have been better if the Electoral Board had presented the Council with a series of options when it reported in September, rather than advocating just one solution. For example, one of the main reasons why we are having so many elections recently is the increased use of primaries. Why didn't the Electoral Board propose, as an option, that we work with all local governments to seek State funds to help cover the costs of primaries? (By the way, the Electoral Board did not even supply information to the Council on the per-voter cost of primaries. Had they already concluded that moving the City election was the answer before getting the data?)

The Electoral Board should be a neutral body. It is regrettable that they have taken sides on the highly sensitive political issue of moving City elections.

David RePass (electronic mail, October 16, 2001).